IDJTIH D AND TAQLID IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY ISLAM*

BY

RUDOLPH PETERS

University of Amsterdam

Islamic reformism as it came into existence by the end of the 19th century was a response to the challenge of the increasing Western impact in the Islamic world. The way this reformism expressed itself was, however, to a large extent conditioned by tradition. All kinds of issues that became particularly associated with it had already been part and parcel of the Islamic heritage and subject of fierce debates. One of these issues-a crucial one in present-day reformism-is the idjtihad versus taqlid discussion.' 1 Reformers claimed the right to interpret the Koran and the Sunnah independently from the prevailing opinions of the lawyers of the four madhhabs. Their claims were opposed by the followers of these madhhabs, who held that since long nobody was qualified anymore to interpret the sources on his own, and that all Moslems were nowadays bound to abide by the decisions of the scholars of the madhhabs.

This discussion is not a novel one. Throughout Islamic history there have been scholars to attack the prevailing notion that taqlid is obligatory. In general they belonged to the fundamentalist tradition in Islam. This is no coincidence as the concept of idjtihdd is structur- ally related to fundamentalism. John Voll has applied the term funda- mentalism to such tendencies in Islamic thought as stress the trans-

* Paper read at the 10th Congres de l'Union Europeenne des Arabisants et Islami- sants (Edinburgh, September 1980). ' This discussion is still going on. For a recent example, cJ: S. Wild, "Muslim und Madhab. Ein Brief von Tokio nach Mekka und seine Folgen in Damaskus", in: Die islamische Welt zwischen Mittelaiter und Neuzeit. Festschrift /ür H. R. Roemer zum 65. Geburtstag. (Beirut, 1979), pp. 674-89.

132

cendence of God as opposed to his immanence, unity as opposed to diversity and authenticity as opposed to openness.2 In my opinion a further characteristic ought to be added: the emphasis on the essential equality of all believers.

The link between idjtihäd and authenticity is quite obvious. For the fundamentalists, idjtihad means to approach the sources of Islam directly in order to ascertain as positively as possible Allah's com- mands, as revealed by Him to His prophet Mohammed. Obligatory adherence to the opinion of a madhhab introduces the element of human reasoning, which is liable to err. Therefore it forms an obstacle for the believer in his quest of the authentic prescriptions, the know- ledge of which can only be obtained from the prophet. Moreover, these madhhabs did not come into existence until the third century of Islam and do therefore not belong to the pure Islam of the Com- panions and the Followers. In addition, these madhhabs have been one of the causes of disunity amongst the Moslems by compelling them to follow different opinions.

The relation, finally, between the fundamentalists' emphasis on the transcendence of Allah and idjtihdd is more complicated. Transcendence in this connection means that Allah is completely independent and separate from His creation. Man cannot know Allah's commands except through His revelation to the Prophets. Prophecy therefore forms the sole line of communication between the Creator and His creation. Only by following and obeying Mohammed can a Moslem be a true believer. In accordance with this notion of separation between Allah and mankind, the fundamentalists consider it impossible that men, other than prophets, can communicate with Allah, for example by mystical illumination. Consequently, they strongly con- demn the view that the founders of the madhhabs, being saints, had direct access to divine knowledge and were therefore infallible (ma °j,fim), a notion to be found for instance in the works of the 16th-century scholar al-Sha 'rani. For the champions of taqlid this was one of the principal justifications for their position. This last point is also inti- mately connected with the fundamentalists' emphasis on the essential

2 John Voll, "The Sudanese Mahdi, frontier fundamentalist", IJMES 10 (1979), pp. 147-8. 3 'Abd al-Wahhdb al-Sha'rdni, al-Mizdn (Cairo, Matba'at al-Azhar, 1351/1932), vol. I, pp. 40 ff.

133

equality of all believers. The only hierarchy they acknowledge is one based on piety and learning, qualities that one can acquire by one's own efforts. The most radical fundamentalists claim therefore that, through assiduous study, any Moslem can obtain the rank of mudjtahid.

In this paper I shall analyse the views on iqjtihad and taglid of four fundamentalist authors who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries.4

They are the well-known Indian scholar Shah Wall Allah al-Dihlawi (1703-62);5 the Wahhabite scholar and judge Hamd b. Nasir b. Mu- 'ammar (d. 1810), who was a pupil of Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab and a faithful servant of the first Sa'üdï state and can therefore be

regarded, in the absence of any substantial treatise on the subject by

4 In this article I shall not deal with the ideas of the Sudanese Mahdi on idjtihad and taqlid. Although they certainly fit within the wider framework of fundamentalist thought, they depart radically from the established doctrine. The Mahdf rejected taqlid and abolished the existing madhhabs. Just as the other fundamentalists, he wanted to found his rulings exclusively on the Koran and the Sunnah. However, claiming to be in direct contact with the prophet Mohammed, his notion of idjtihad was different from the accepted notion. In his view, his decisions derived immediately from the source of the shari 'ah, the prophet, and were therefore superior to decisions arrived at by normal idjtihäd. Consequently, he could refute the argument of his opponents that he was not qualified to practise idjtihdd, by pointing out that the prophet himself communicated with him. Cf. al-Hasan b. Sa'd al-'Abb£di, a/-Anwär al-saniyyah Ii-:;a/äm al-munkirin 'ald /-lJaçlrah al-Mahd4,yah (Omdurman, 1305 [1888]), pp. 230-41. 5 For general information on Shah Wall Allah, see Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Shah Wali-Alldh and his times (Canberra, Ma'rifat Publishing House, 1980). He wrote two treatises on the subject: 'Iqd al-<Jidfi ahkcim al-idjtihid wa-l-taqlid (Cairo, al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, 1398 [1978], 56 pp.) (henceforth: SHWA-'Iqd) and bayan .sabab al-ikhti14f'fi 1-abkim al7liqhi?,yah (Cairo, al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, 1385 [1965], 48 pp.). The first treatise has been partially translated by M. D. Rahbar in MW 45 (1955), pp. 346-58. 6 Hamd b. Nasir b. 'Uthm5n b. Mu'ammar al-Nadjdi al-Tamimi was born in 'Uyay- nah. He studied in Dir'iyyah under Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahh5b, his brother Sulayman b. 'Abd al-Wahhab and under Ibn Ghannam. Then he became a teacher himself. In 1211 (1796-7) the Wahhabite ruler 'Abd al-'Aziz sent him to Mecca in order to defend the Wahhabite doctrine in a debating contest with Meccan scholars, which was held at the instigation of the sharjf' of Mecca, Ghdlib b. Musä'id. His defence of Wahhabism was 1, :er published in Al-Hadiyyah al-Sunniyyah n>a-I-tu/1fah al-Wahhdbiyyah al-Nadjdiyyah (Collected by Sulaymdn b. Sai)män, ed. by Muhammad Rashid Rida, 2nd impr. Cairo, Matba'at al-Manar, 1344 [1925-6]), pp. 52-88. After the Wahhabite conquest of the Hejaz, he was appointed as inspector of the administra- tion of justice in Mecca (mu.shrif 'a/ä ahkdm qudat Makkah al-mukarramah). He died in 1225/1811. See: 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Abd al-Latif A1 al-Shaykh, Mashdhir 'ulamd' Nadjd wa-ghayrihim (2nd impr. Riyad, Ddr al-Yamamah, 1394 [1974]), pp. 202-6, and 'Abd Allah b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Salih al-Bassam, 'Ulamd' Nadjd khilal sittat qurun (Mecca, Maktabat al-Nahdah al-Hadithah, 1397 [1978]), vol. I, pp. 239-43. His treatise "Ris31at al-idjtihdd wa-l-taqlid" (henceforth: HIM-Ris) has been published in Ma6mf °at al-rasd'il wa-l-masj'il al-Nadjdiyyah (Cairo, Matba'at al-Manar, 1346-9 [1928-31]), vol. II, pt. 3, pp. 2-30.

134

the founder of the movement,' as representative of Wahhabite thought; the Yemenite scholar Muhammad b. `Ali al-Shawkani (1760-1832)1 and finally the North African founder of the Sanusiyyah tariqah, Muhammad b. 'Ali al-SanQsi (1787-1859).y They all wrote treatises on

' The only statement on the problem of idjtihdd and taqlid that I could trace in the works of Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab, is a rather lapidary passage in his "Sittat usul 'azimah mutidah djaiiiah" (publ. in Madjmiïat al-T(iii,hid al-Nadjdiyyah, Cairo, Matba'at al-Manar, 1345 [1926], p. 140). It runs as follows:

"The sixth principle: Rejecting the practice, established by Satan, with regard to abandoning the Koran and the 6'M/?Ma/? and following various divergent opinions and tendencies. This, i.e. the practice established by Satan, is [based on the opinion] that the Koran and the Swmah can only be known by an absolute mudjtahid and that an absolute mudjtahid is a person with so many qualifications that they are maybe not even to be found completely in Abu Bakr and 'Umar. If someone is not like this, he must [according to this opinion] keep away from them [i.e. Koran and 5M/w<7/!], as [if bound by] a positive and unequivocal obligation, and if he [nevertheless] seeks guidance in them, he is either a heretic or a fool because of their difficulty".

This brief passage contains by implication a number of basic elements to be found in most fundamentalist writings on the subject: the fact that the obligation of taqlid keeps the believer away from Allah's revelation and leads to disunity amongst the Moslems, and that idjtihäd can still be practised and is not as difficult as the adherents of taqlid pretend.

Muhammad b. 'Ali al-Shawkani (1760-1832) studied, taught and issued in Yemen. Originally he belonged to the Zaydite madhhab, but before he reached his thirtiest year, he realized that taqlid was to be rejected. Therefore, he began practising idjtihdd independently of the existing madhhabs. In 1795, the Imam of Yemen, al-Mansur bi-lIäh, appointed him supreme judge, an office he occupied until his death. He often acted as the Imam's secretary and in that capacity he corresponded between 1807 and 1813 with the leaders of the first Sa'fdi state. See: his autobiography in al-Badr al-/äli' bi-malJäsin man ba `d al-qarn al-sabi ̀ (Cairo, Matba'at al-Sa'5dah, 1348 [1930]), vol. II, pp. 214-25 and further vol. II, pp. 6-8 and vol. I, p. 464; Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Yahya Zabarah, Nayl al-wa/ar min tarädjim ri4idl al-Yaman fi l-qarn al-thälith 'ashar (Cairo, al-Matha'ah al-Salafiyyah, 1350 [1931-2]), vol. II, pp. 297-302; another biography is to be found in the introduction to his Nayl al-aH'/är sharh muntaga I-akhbdr min ahadith sayyid al-akhydr (Cairo, Mustafa I-B5b! al-Halabi, n.d.), vol. I, pp. 3-8. For his ideas on idjtihdd and taqlid I have consulted the following works: al-Qawl al-mufid _fi adillat al-idjtihdd wa-l-taqlid (ed. Muhammad Munir, 2nd impr., Cairo, Idarat al-Tiba'ah al-Muniriyyah, n.d. [ca. 1925], 48 pp.) (henceforth: SHAW-Qawl) and Irshad al-fuhul ild tahqiq al-haqq min 'ilm al-uxfl (Cairo, Idarat al-Tib5'ah al-Muniriyyah, 1348 [1929], 252 pp.) (henceforth: SHAW-Irshad), esp. pp. 220-40. I have not been able to see the following works, which, according to their titles, deal with the subject: Tashkik 'a13 l-taJkik, summar- ized by Muhammad Siddiq Khan under the title al-Iglid li-adillat al-idjlihid wa-l-taqlid (Istanbul, 1295), Djawab al-muu'abbidin fi daf al-shubah 'an al-mudjtahidin, ms. (both listed in GAL, S II, pp. 818-9) and Risä/at bughyat al-mustafid fi I-radd 'ali man ankar al-idjtihad min ahl al-taqlid (listed in the biographical introduction to Nayl a/-aw/är, p. 8). 9 For general information on al-Sanusi, see: Ahmad Sidqi al-Dadjdjani, a!-Harakah a/-Sanüsiyyah. Nashatuhi wa-numüwuhii.li l-qarn at-tdsi' 'ashar (Beirut, Dar Lubnan, 1967), Helmut Klopfer, Aspekte der Bewegung de.s Muhammad b. 'Ali al-Sanüsi (Wies- baden/Cairo [1967]) and Nicola A. Ziadeh, Sanu.siyah. A study of a revivalist movement

135

the subject. On the other hand I shall pay some attention to the writings of their opponents. 1 0

The classical meaning of idjtihäd, as found with some minor vari- ations in the technical dictionaries and handbooks on legal method- ology, is "exerting one's effort in order to derive from the bases of the law (adillah) an opinion concerning a legal rule"." Its complement is taqlid, by which term is understood "accepting an opinion concerning a legal rule without knowledge of its bases".' From about the 10th century A.D. the opinion came to prevail that independent idjtihad was not admitted anymore and that all Moslems, laymen as well as scholars, had to accept the opinions of the founders of the madhhabs. This view was substantiated by a number of Traditions to the effect that

in Islam (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1958). For this article I have used the following works by al-Sanusi : Iqdz ol-wa.snan ji 1- 'amal bi-I-/1adiifi ii,a-l-Quri5n (Beirut, D5r al-Kltdb al-Lubndni, 1388-1968, 143 pp.) (henceforth: SAN-Iqaz) and Kitab al-masä'il al- 'ashar al-musammä Bughyat al-maqlixid fi khuld., 5at al-niarcisid (Beirut, D5r a]-Kit5b al-Luhnänï, 1388-1968, 297 pp.) (henceforth: SAN-Buyghyah). Brockelmann and Dadjdjani mention other titles on the same subject, viz. Bughyaf al-sül Ii 1-it-.Iitilidel lI"a-l- 'amal hi-haclith al-msül (GAL, S I I, p. 883 ; Dadjdjdni, op. (-it., p. 136), Tait-d'in al-asir7rrah , fi ji'ini al-sunnah, RisCilcih shämilah fi mas 'a/atay al-qabçl uor-!-taglid, Iiihat al-akinnah fil 1- 'amal bi-l-Kifäh lI"a-I-Sunnah, Fahm al-akhiid fil mavradd al-idjtihäd and al-Usfil?vyah fi 1- 'amal bi-l-Kitib lI"a-I-Sunnah (I7adjdjani, op. dt., pp. 135-6). These works have not been printed and as yet I have not been able to locate their mss.

10 I have made use of the following material: a) Fatwas against the Sanüsiyyah, issued by two Egyptian Malikite muftis, Mustafa I-BGldqi (1800-47) and Muhammad 'Illaysh (1802-83), published in Muhammad 'Illaysh, Fath al- 'Ali al-MCIik ji l-/atwa 'alci madhhab al-imäm Malik (Cairo, Matba'at al-Taqaddum al-'Ilmiyyah, 1321 [1903], I, pp. 51-98 ; b) Da'ud b. Sulayman al-Baghdadi al-Naqshabandi al-Kh£lidi (1816- 1882), Ashadd al-djihädji ibjfl da'sra l-idjtihäd (Istanbul, al-Maktabat ishiq [sic], 1978, 44 pp.; which is a photographical reprint of the ed. Bombay, 1305 [1887]). This treatise, composed in 1876, was written as a refutation of the views of some Indian Moslems who claimed that they were mudjtahids and not bound to follow one of the madhfiabs. Probably the Alrl-i Hadith are meant, spiritual heirs of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahh5b and Shawkani. c) Ibrahim al-Samannfdi al-Mansuri, SciCiciat al-dirayn li I-radd 'alä

a/- Wahhähiyyah wa-mugallidat al-Zdhiri.v.vah (2 vols., Cairo, Matba'at Djaridat a]-lsl5m, 1319 [1901-2]). This voluminous work, completed in 1895, is a refutation of Wahhabite and Sanusite views. The problem of idjtihäd and taqlid is dealt with in vol. II, pp. 206-309. In this part the author draws extensively on Da'ud b. Sulayman's book Ashadd al-d_jihad and the .faot?as by Bü1äqï and 'Illaysh. More remarkable, how- ever, is the fact that he gives many quotations from SHWA-Iqd and SHWA-Insaf (which he summarizes on pp. 238-49), in support of his own view. Of course, he does not cite the crucial passages where Shah Wall Allah deviates from the traditional theory. " See e.g. 'Atl b. Muhammad al-Djurdjani, Kitab (Cairo, al-Matba'ah al-Hamidiyyah al-Misriyyah, 1321 [1903]), p. 5 ; Muhammad A1ä b. 'Ali al-Tahanawi, Kita-b kashshäf istilahat al-funun (ed. Muhammad Wadjih e.a., Calcutta, The Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1862), vol. I, pp. 198-9. 12 See e.g. Djurdjani, op. cit., p. 44; Tahdnawi, op. cit., vol. II, p. 1178.

136

in the course of time real knowledge will disappear. One of these, often cited in the discussion on idjtihad and taqlid, says: "Allah will not take knowledge away by removing it from the people. He will rather take it away by seizing the scholars. Then, when there is no [true] scholar left, people will take ignorant leaders and these will give fat??a.s without knowledge. Thus they err and lead people astray".' 3

At some point of time, scholars, looking back, began to describe the process of "closing the door of idjtihäd" (insidäd hab al-idjtihäd) as a historical process characterized by a gradual narrowing down of the scope for idjtihdd. As a result they distinguished different degrees of idjtihäd. The founders of the madhhabs were absolute mudjtahids (mudjtahid mutlaq). After them came the madhhab-mudjtahids (mudjtahid f 1-madhhab), followed by the . fatwa-mudjtahids (mudjtahid.lf and finally the pure muqallids. There is some variation in the termin- ology and the number of degrees, but the general idea is clear.'4

The obligation of taqlid, however, was never universally accepted. It was opposed by Ibn Hazm (994-1064), but also by scholars belonging to the existing madhhabs, such as Abu 'Umar Yusuf b. 'Abd al-Barr (978-1070), Sind b. 'Indn al-Azdi (d. 1146) and 'Izz al-Din b. 'Abd al-Salam ( 1181-1262). Up to the 16th century there have been scholars who claimed the rank of idjtihad themselves, or were recognized as such by other scholars. 1 There existed also the doctrine, held by the Hanbalites and a number of Shafi'ites that no period would ever be devoid of a mudjtahid, generally understood as absolute mudjtahid.16 6

Wensinck, Concordance, vol. IV, p. 320. vol. III, pp. 1026 ff., s.v. Nicolas P. Aghnides, Mohammedan theories

oj'.Iinance, with an introduction to Mohammedan law and a hibliography eLahore, Premier Book House, 1961), pp. 116-7; Abdul Rahim, The principles of" Muhammadan jurisprudence according to the Hanli [sic], Maliki, Sha.fl'i, and Hanhali schools (Lahore, Indus Publishers, n.d.), pp. 182-3 ; Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Tdrikh al-maclhalrib cil- lslämiyyah (Cairo, Dar al-Fikr al-'Arabi, n.d.), vol. II, pp. 112-22; Id., Usi?l (Cairo, Matba'at Mukhaymir, n.d.), pp. 374-85. ' For lists of those who claimed to be mudjtcrhids up to the 16th century, see SHAW-Irshad, p. 224, SHWA-Insaf, pp. 31-2 and SAN-Iqaz, p. 72. Al-San(isi quotes Ahmad Baba (d. 1672), K(läyat al-muhtciqi man lays fi l-Dibädj (GAL II, 467, S II, 716) and Abu Bakr al-'Arabi al-Hadrami, Nihayat al-sul (not listed in GAL). '6 'Abd Allah b. 'Abd al-Muhsin al-Turki, Usul mudhhuh al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, Dirdsah usuliyyah muqärinalz (Cairo, Matba'at Djdmi'at 'Ayn Shams, 1394 [1974]), pp. 635-7; Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Ahmad b. Hanbal, hayittih ara'-uh vt,a-jiqhuh (Cairo, Dar al-Fikr al-'Arabi, n.d.), p. 369; W. Montgomery Watt, "The closing of the door of igtihäd", in: Orientalia Hispanica, I (ed. J. M. Barral, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1974), pp. 675-8. Watt's article is based on SHAW-Irshad, p. 223, where the words of the Shafi'ite al-Zarkashi (d. 1392) are cited. A similar text is to be found

137

In the 13th century some kind of compromise was worked out in the Shafilte madhhab by al-Nawawï (1233-77) and others. They did so by making a distinction between the independent absolute mudjtahid (mudjtahid mutlaq mustaqill) and the affiliated absolute mudjtahid (mudjtahid mu!laq muntasib). Whereas the mudjtahids of the former category, that of the founders of the madhhabs, had complete freedom in deriving the rules from the bases of the law, those of the latter category were in some general way bound to adhere to the principles laid down by their imams, the founders of the mailhhabs. On specific points decisions would often concur with those of the imams. This, however, cannot be regarded as taqlid, since the affiliated mudjtahid accepts his imam's ruling with complete understanding of its bases and arguments. Those who claimed to be absolute mudjtahids, after the establishment of the madhhabs were, according to this theory, absolute mudjtahids of the second category since the first category had ceased to exist after the 10th century A.D. Thus this theory recognized the possibility that there were still absolute mudjtahids, without however compromising the superiority of the founders of the madhhahs.17

Returning to our fundamentalist authors, we find that two of them, Shah Wali Allah and al-Sanusi, have adopted the above-mentioned theory lock, stock and barrel. With obvious approval they quote these Shafi`ite authors and declare emphatically that the rank of affiliated absolute mudjtahid can still be attained. Implicitly, they seem to claim this rank for themselves." g Ibn Mu'ammar, who relies mainly on Hanbalite authorities, differs in terminology. He distinguishes between the absolute or independent mudjtahid on the one hand, and the mudjtahid who is bound to adhere to the opinions of the imams (al-mudjtahid al-muqayyad bi-madhdhib al-a'immah) on the other. The latter one's idjtihäd, he says, is mixed with taqlid. Given the decisions of the different imams, he must look for the best-founded 'opinions. This form of idjtihäd, Ibn Mu'ammar claims, can still be exercised.19 y

in SAN-Iqaz, pp. 81-3, where the Shafi'ites al-Birmawi (d. 1427) and al-Suyuti (d. 1505) are quoted. The latter appears to have written a separate treatise on the subject, entitled al-Radd 'alä man akhlad ild I-ard wa-djahil ann al-idjtihad _?ard (not listed in GAL). " SHWA-Iqd, pp. 7-8, 26-8; SHWA-Insaf, pp. 31-2; SAN-Iqaz, pp. 62-3; SAN- Bughyah, pp. 83-6. 1 Ibid. ' HIM-Ris, pp. 5, 26-7.

138

All three authors complain about the fact that most people seem not to be aware of this distinction and that they erroneously think that, in the absence of an independent absolute mudjtahid, there can be only taqlid. Al-Shawkanï is the most radical of the four. He rejects the theory that there are different degrees of itljtihdd. In his view there is but one form of idjtihäd, which can be practised by anybody possessing sufficient knowledge. Those who maintain that the door of idjtihdd has been closed and that only the four imams have truly understood the Koran and the Sunnah:

"tell lies. about Allah and accuse Him of being not capable of creating people that understand what is His law for them and how they must worship Him. They make it appear as if what he has enacted for them through His Book and His Messenger, is not an absolute but a temporary law, restricted to the period before the rise of the madhhabs. After their appearance, there was no Book and no Sunnah anymore [if these people are to be believed], but there emerged persons that enacted a new law and invented another religion for this community and replaced the Book and the Sunnah, that were there before them, by their personal opinions and sentiments". 20

One of the arguments of the traditional scholars for the obligation of taqlid is the complexity and difficulty of deriving rules from the Koran and the Sunnah. Only people of eminence, such .as the four imams could handle this, because they belonged to the best generations, the generations among whom the pure knowledge still prevailed, knowledge obtained immediately or almost immediately from the

Prophet. Moreover, these imams were aided by supernatural talents. Since then, however, times have only deteriorated and people with the skills and knowledge of the imams no longer exist.21 The funda- mentalists' main argument, that they rely solely on the Koran and the Sunnah, whereas traditional scholars base their opinions only on the words of their imams, is false according to their adversaries. When traditional scholars relate the words of their imdms, they do so since

they consider these opinions as founded on the Koran and the Sunnah, as interpreted by these imams with their superior knowledge. When the fundamentalist assert that they rely exclusively on the Koran and the Sunnah, they nevertheless make use of interpretation. But being of a later generation, their understanding of the rules of interpretation

20 SHAW-Qawl, p. 27; SHAW-Irshad, p. 224. 21 'Illaysh, op. cit., pp. 80-7; Baghd5di, op. cit., passim; Samannadi, op. cit., passim, esp. II, pp. 282-93. They all quote long passages from al-Sha'rdni's Mizan (cf. note 3).

139

is far below the standard of the ima-ms. Therefore, their argument is based on a false contrast and does not hold good.22 Against this, fundamentalist authors argue that idjtihdd has in fact become easier. Whereas the people of the first generations travelled for months in order to collect Traditions, now everything has been compiled in books that are easily accessible. Consequently, it is no longer difficult to acquire the tools needed for idjtiha-d. Al-Shawkdni goes as far as to assert that it suffices for a mudjtahid to have studied one compendium (mukhtasar) in each of the five disciplines required for idjtihid. 23 3

The cornerstone of traditional doctrine is that taqlid is lawful, and that it became obligatory in the course of time, due to the absence of mudjtahids. About this last point, the traditional scholars maintain, there is consensus. In fact, they contend, it ought to be regarded as an article of faith that one must necessarily know (ma ?üm min al-din

They hereby implicitly accused their opponents of apos- tasy. For the lawfulness of taqlid they produce the following Koranic texts: "Question the people of the Remembrance, if ye do not know." (K. 16:43; 21 :7) and "0 believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you." (K. 4:59). Moreover, they quote the following Traditions: "My companions are like the stars: no matter whom of them you follow, you are on the right path." and "1l one does not know what to do, the only remedy is to inquire."2s

The views of al-Shawkani and al-Sanfsi are diametrically opposed to this doctrine.26 Following Ibn Hazm, they hold that taqlid is hid'ah

22 'IIIaysh, op. cit., p. 88; Samannudi, op. cit., II, pp. 302-3, quoting Tllaysh. ?3 HIM-Ris, pp. 10, 23; SHAW-Qawl, p. 29; SAN-Iqaz, p. 68; SAN-Bughyah,

pp. 89-90, 92. 24 'Illaysh, op. cit., p. 79. 25 The complete text of this Tradition runs as follows: "Djdbir has said: 'Once we went on a journey. Then one of our men was hit by a stone which fractured his skull. Afterwards he had a seminal emission and asked his companions whether they thought that he was allowed to perform tayammum. They answered that they did not think so since he had water at his disposal. He then did his ablutions and died. When they came to the messenger of Allah, they told him what had happened. Then he said: 'They have killed him. May Allah kill them. Why didn't they inquire, when they were at a loss [what to do], for if one does not know what to do, the only remedy is to inquire (innaini shiJa' al-'iy al-su'dl)'." cf Wensinck, Concordance, vol. IV, p. 457. 26 SHAW-Qawl, 2-12, 14, 17, 34-5, 38; SHAW-Irshad, 236; SAN-Iqaz, 94-5, 99, 102, 105, 118-20; SAN-Bughyah, 95-103. Many of their arguments are, sometimes even verbatim, taken from Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah (I'lim al-muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al- 'älamin, Cairo, Idarat al-Tiba'ah al-Muniriyyah, n.d., esp. vol. II, pp. 128-208).

140

and forbidden. They reject the assertion that there is consensus on this issue. Although, al-Shawkani adds, it would nowadays appear that almost all scholars are agreed upon this point, this of no relevance, since for a valid consensus, having force of law, only the opinions of mudjtahids count, whereas the scholars of these days consider them- selves as mere muqallids. Now, by putting a ban upon taqlid, these authors did not imply that everybody was qualified to be a mudjtahid. The majority of the Moslems are laymen that have no sufficient knowledge to consult the sources. They must, therefore, have recourse to specialists. However, they must not blindly accept their opinions, but ask to be told the bases of their decisions. Or at least they must make sure of the fact that these decisions are in conformity with the Koran and the Sunnah, by querying whether the answer contains Allah's decree or only human opinion. If the latter is the case, they must consult another specialist. This procedure then is called ittihä " following or obeying, viz. the Koran and the Sunnah.27 The Koranic arguments adduced in support of the lawfulness of taqlid, are not conclusive according to al-Shawkani and al-Saniisi. The verse: "Ques- tion the people of the Remembrance, do not know", contains no general command, but has, as appears from the context, only a limited purport. It is addressed to the polytheist Meccans and exhorts them to question the Jews and the Christians in order to get a con- firmation of Mohammed's message. However, were it to embody a general command, then it means no more than that those who do not know, must approach specialists in order to be informed of Allah's decrees. This, then, is ittibj' and not taqlid. As for K. 4:59, that orders the believers to obey "those in authority", i.e. the lawyers, they reply that this duty of obedience is not absolute. Only when their commands are in agreement with Allah's decrees as laid down in the Koran and the Sunnah, are these commands to be followed. This, then, also amounts to ittiba and not to taqlid. The same holds for the Tradition "If' one does not know what to do, the only remedy is to inquire". Finally they consider the Tradition "My Companions are like the stars" to be weak. For the interdiction of taqlid they

27 This distinction between taglid and ittibci' is not a new one. The term ittiba ̀ had already been used by Ahmad b. Hanbal and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (q£ Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 131, 137, 139). Ibn Daqiq al-'Id (d. 1302-3) had called it "the layman's 16tih£d" (cf. SAN-Iqaz, p. 94).

141

quote the second part of the verse about obeying "those in authority" (K. 4 :59) : should quarrel on something refer it to Allah and the messenger". Since the imams have quarreled, problems must be referred to Allah and the messenger, i.e. the Koran and the Sunnah, and taqlid is therefore forbidden. Shah Wali Allah, who expressly refutes Ibn Hazm's view that taqlid is forbidden, and Ibn Mu'ammar have a more differentiated approach to the matter. 7/M/, they say, is lawful for laymen Cämmi) and scholars without sufficient know- ledge, but not for those who can comprehend and appreciate the bases of the law. Neither is taqlid lawful for those who are bent on following the rulings of only one specific lawyer in everything he says, even if this be against the Koran and the Sunnah, because they are convinced that he is infallible

In fact the whole discussion boils down to the question what is to be preferred: a clear text of the Koran and the Sunnah or the rulings of one madhhab. The point our authors have in common is that they all reject the strict adherence to one madhhab, as if its founder were infallible and like a prophet. 29 They denounce madhhab- fanaticism (ta `assub al-madhhab) as an innovation (bid'ah), since there were no madhhabs in the period of the Sahdbah, and as one of the major causes of the division and enmity amongst Moslems.30 They further criticize the practice of the madhhab-people, of only citing such traditions as are in agreement with the opinions of their imam. When confronted with other traditions, they go to great length in order to prove that this special tradition is not authentic or has been abrogated by another tradition. If they are at their wits' end, they retort: "Do you think that you are better versed in the science of tradition than our imam? No doubt, he was aware of this tradition, but he must have seen some reason for not following it".31 Against this form of fanatical taqlid, the fundamentalists argue, the Koran warns in several places, e.g. in K. 9:31 ("They have taken their rabbis

SHWA-Iqd, pp. 24-5, 42-3; HIM-Ris, pp. 6-7. HIM.Ris, p. 23; SHWA-Iqd, pp. 18, 24; SAN-Iqaz, pp.55, 58, 116; SAN-

Bughyah, pp. 62, 123. Both ai-Sanfsi and Shah Wali Allah cite the Shafi'ite scholar 'Izz al-Din b. 'Abd al-Saldm (d. 1262) in this connexion. 30 HIM-Ris, p. 23; SHAW-Qawl, pp. 14, 17; SAN-Iqaz, p. 106; SAN-Bughyah, p. 73; (cf. Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 162-3, 204). 3' HIM-Ris, p. 23; SHWA-Iqd, pp. 18-24; SAN-Iqaz, pp.43, 55, 58, 106, 112-3; SAN-Bughyah, 73.

142

and their monks as lords apart from Allah and the Messiah, Mary's son."), K. 43:23 ("We indeed found our fathers upon a community, and we are following upon their traces."), and K. 33 :67 ("They shall say: 'Our Lord, we obeyed our and great ones, and they led us astray ,from the way'.").32 Moreover, they quote sayings of the four imams to the effect that their opinions should be disregarded if they are at variance with an authentic traditions. Finally, they mention a number of logical refutations of blind taqlid that had already been developed by al-Muzani (d. 877-8) and Ibn 'Abd al- Barr.34

However, beyond their common condemnation of blind madhhab fanaticism, our authors' opinions vary. Again, the most radical position is taken by al-Shawkani and al-Sanusi. Their view is unambiguous: Under all circumstances Moslems must follow the Koran and the Sunnah, even in the case of texts that no imam has ever followed. Having cited a number of authorities to this effect, al-Shawkani remarks that he is ashamed of having to record all these opinions and asks rhetorically why Moslems are in need of the authority of any scholar in order to be convinced that the words of Allah and His prophet must be preferred to the opinions of scholars.35 Tradi- tional doctrine cautions against immediately following a tradition. Only when it has been established beyond doubt that there is no counterargument (mu 'ärÙ!), e.g. another tradition that abrogates it, is it allowed to follow it. Al-Santisi's reply to this objection is that abrogation seldom occurs with regard to the hadith and that there are at the most ten traditions with abrogating force. Immediately following a tradition entails therefore less risk of falling into error, than relying on the opinions of fallible scholars.36 In theory at least,

32 SHWA-Iqd, p. 25; SHAW-Qawi, p. 29; SAN-Iqaz, p. 92. A1-Shawkani and al- Sanusi quote Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, as cited by Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah (op. cit., vol. II, p. 134). 33 HIM-Ris, pp.3, 27; SHWA-Iqd, p. 48; SHAW-Qawl, p. 21 ; SHAW-Irshad, p. 236; SAN-Iqaz, pp. 23-6, 118, 121 (cl Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 139-40). 34 HIM-Ris, pp. 28-9; SHWA-Iqd, p. 24; SHAW-Qawl, pp. 15, 24; SHAW-Irshad, p. 237; SAN-Iqaz, pp. 122-3. (Cf. Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 136-8). 3s SHAW-Qawl, p. 23. 36 SAN-Bughyah, pp. 124-5, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah ; SAN-Iqaz, pp. 116- 7, quoting Salih al-Fullani (d. 1803; v. GAL S II, 523) and Muhammad Hayah al- Sindi (d. 1750; v. GAL S II, 522). Fullani's book !qciz al-himam is one of Sanusi's major sources. Pp. 98-128 of SAN-Iqaz consist almost exclusively of quotations from

143

al-Shawkani's and al-Sanusi's views amount to a total rejection of the madhhahs. The opinions of the four imams, al-Sanüsï says, should

only be used to come to a better understanding of the bases of the Shah Wali Allah and Ibn Mu'ammar do not go that far. They

accept the four madhhahs and hold that Moslems are bound to follow them, since beyond them there is no truth.38 Shah Wall Allah argues that in their existence there is great benefit. In jurisprudence, just as in all other sciences and trades, it is helpful to make use of the experience of your predecessors. Moreover, the Prophet has summoned the believers to follow the majority (al-sawäd al-a ';am). For Shah Wall Allah, it seems, all madhhabs are of equal value. Ibn Mu'ammar, however, in accordance with the official Wahhabite doctrine, shows some predilection for the Hanbalite School, since, he remarks, Ahmad b. Hanbal was the imam that, more than any other one, clung to the bases of the law.39 A follower of a madhhab, however, provided that he has a certain knowledge of jurisprudence, may follow a tra- dition against the opinion of his own madhhab, if an imam of another madhhah has also done so. In general they hold it advisable to follow those opinions upon which the majority of the imams are agreed. If there is no majority, one should follow the opinion with the strongest arguments.

From the foregoing it will be clear that the views of our four fundamentalist authors with regard to the idjtihad- taqlid issue are not identical. Remotest from traditional doctrine are al-Shawkani's ideas since he does not differentiate between the various ranks of idjtihad, claims that anybody with a minimal knowledge of juris- prudence can be a mudjtahid and considers taqlid absolutely forbidden. Second comes al-Sanusi, who adopts the distinction between the in- dependent and the affiliated mudjtahid and thereby acknowledges the superiority of the four imam, although he reserves the right to go beyond the pale set by them if a tradition is to be preferred. He is followed by Shah Wali Allah, who holds that Moslems are bound to accept the rulings of the four imams, but shows no bias towards

Fullani's book, which, in its turn, draws heavily upon Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah's l'läm a/'?MM'??/'W.

SAN-Iqaz, p. 120, quoting Fullani. 38 SHWA-Iqd, pp. 23, 36; HIM-Ris, pp. 21, 26-7. 39 HIM-Ris, p. 22.

144

any of the Schools. Finally comes Ibn Mu'ammar, whose ideas are similar to those of Shah Wall Allah, except that he has strong affinity with the Hanbalite madhhah. The point they have in common, is that they criticize the strict adherence to one madhhah, for better and for worse.

The study of these fundamentalists texts on idjtihad and taqlid is not yet completed. Further research may yield interesting results. The texts contain a wealth of quotations reproducing fragments of earlier discussions on this issue. Therefore, they are mines of inform- ation, that can give us some insight in the historical process of "the closing of the door of idjtihäd", a process of which we still know very little, and provide us with a solid starting-point for further investigations.

Systematical exploration of the quotations to be found in these texts may also shed light on another problem: the continuity of the fundamentalist tradition. It would appear that there was an upsurge of fundamentalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. In my view, this is only partly true. What we actually do observe is an upsurge of politico-religious movements with an ideology based on fundamentalist ideas. Since these ideas criticize prevailing beliefs and institutions and are therefore orientated towards change, they can provide a suitable ideology for activist movements. These ideas, however, did exist long before these movements appeared. It is a well known fact that many of these ideas can be traced back to Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328) and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Djawziyyah (1292-1350). This is also borne out by the fact that, except Shah Wali Allah, all of our authors quote these scholars frequently. There are, however, a number of identical passages by other, sometimes quite obscure, authors to be found in these texts. This may well be evidence of a common tradition on which our authors have drawn. This impression is corroborated when one studies their "intellectual family-trees". John Voll has pointed out the relationship between Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab and Shah Wali Allah on the one hand and a group of Medinese scholars with Muhammad Hayah al-Sindi (d. 1750) as a focal point on the other.4° They were all connected with Ibrahim b. Hasan al-

40 John Voll, "Muhammad Hayya al-Sindi and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhdb: an analysis of an intellectual group in eighteenth-century Madina", BSOA.S 38 (1975), pp. 32-9.

145

Ktirdni al-Kurdi (d. 1690)41 and Abu I-Baqd' al-Hasan b. 'All al- 'Udjaymi (or al-'Adjami) (d. Now, it can be established that al-Sanusi is also linked with these scholars, not only through his intellectual "grandfather" Muhammad Hayah al-Sindi, but also via independent chains of teachers.43 Al-Shawkani is connected with Ibrahim al-Kurani through one chain of teachers.44 In my view, these relationships deserve more study. Systematical examination of the body of quotations, in combination with the use of the available biographical and autobiographical material (e.g. the fahrasahs and idjäzahs) can give us more insight into the continuity of the funda- mentalist tradition.

4' GAL, II, p. 385, S II, p. 520. 42 GAL, II, p. 392, S II, p. 536. " One of al-Sanusi's teachers, al-Badr b. 'Amir al-Mi'ddni was a student of al- Sindi's, which links him with both al-KFir5ni and al-Hasan b. 'All al-'Udjaymi. Further he is connected with them through his teacher, the Meccan mufti and qadi Abu Sulayman 'Abd al-Hafiz b. Muhammad al-'Udjaymi via the Meccan muftis 'Abd al- Malik and 'Abd al-Qadir b. Abi Bakr. The latter was a student of both al-Kfr3ni and al-Hasan al-'Udjaymi. Finally he is connected with them through his teacher Ibn Sharif. These "intellectual pedigrees" are to be found in: Muhammad b. 'All al-Sanusi, al-Manhal al-rawi al-rd'iq .fi asänid al- 'ulüm ii,a-usfil al-tarä'iq (Beirut, Ddr al-Kit5b al-Lubnani, 1388-1968), pp. 13-5.

al-Shawk5ni is connected with al-Kurani through his teacher Yfsuf b. Muhammad b. `Ala' al-Din, whose grandfather was a student of al-Kfirdni's. See: Muhammad b. 'Ali al-Shawkdni, al-Badr al-Tdli', vol. I, pp. 11-2.